This time last week I had no idea what "blood libel" meant or what it referenced historically. I'm betting dollars to donuts that Palin didn't either. Some have suggested that Glenn Beck might have written her speech, others have guessed Andrew Breitbart who had tweeted the same phrase the day before Palin's speech.
https://twitter.com/...
And to the gutless GOP establishment who watches in silence the blood libel against @SarahPalinUSA. We will remember. #TeaParty
5:57 PM Jan 11th via web
We all remember Breitbart as the one who masterfully orchestrated the slander of Shirley Sherrod which subsequently embarrassed the Obama Administration, so I think it's safe to assume that this phrase has been artfully and intentionally injected into the discussion for a purpose.
But given the attention that that one phrase has gathered, and the the fact that Breitbart had laid its foundation by tweeting the same relatively arcane phrase -- memorable only to Jews, and yet, to them, only one notch lower than the Holocaust in significance -- you must wonder: "what were she thinking?"
Do you think Breitbart, or Palin's Breitbart-inspired or Breitbart-consulted speechwriter, explained to Palin the weight of those two words and the fact that it will be picked out and held high not only as an over-the-top and inappropriate phrase to use in this tragic context, but would shift the focus of her speech away from the victims of the tragedy -- perhaps where she should have stayed had she been a true statesman -- towards a charge of persecution by the mainstream media of not only her but the entire conservative movement.
An editorial in The Washington Times defended Palin/Breitbart's use of the term and embraced the charge of persecution:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/...
This is simply the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers. The last two years have seen a proliferation of similar baseless charges of racism, sexism, bigotry, Islamophobia and inciting violence against those on the right who have presented ideas at odds with the establishment's liberal orthodoxy.
The overriding criticism of the speech comes from the fact that she made the tragic shooting of 20 people, including a US Representative who was still clinging to life and the death of an idealistic 9-year old girl, all about her. This perception -- right or wrong, fair or unfair -- is a product of those two weighty words spoken during an eight-minute speech.
It may very well have been the end of Palin's political lifeline. In the weeks before the Tucson shooting Palin's approval ratings were sinking fast:
"According to our NBC/WSJ poll, just 29% view her favorably, compared with 43% who view her unfavorably..."
Will Palin's Blood Libel Speech, as it's become to be known, serve to rally all those persecution-complexed conservatives back to her? Will Palin's primary target shift from the Good Old Boy Network she dismantled (somewhat) in Alaska and in the 2010 elections, to the "journalists and pundits" and their blood-libel campaign against conservatives? We've already seen the successful marginalization of the mainstream media by several high-profile conservatives -- Palin, certainly, but also Sharron Angle, Rick Perry, and Rick Scott. Is this Phase 2? All-out war?
Consider this: George W. Bush left the presidency (under the cloud of an economic crisis, an unpopular TARP bailout, record home foreclosures and bank failures, a leak in the workforce that was gushing millions of jobs, not to mention two raging wars and torture scandals) with 29% approval. So I think it's fair to say that despite the clumsiness and inappropriateness of her woe-is-me speech, 29% is hitting bottom for conservative politicians. Palin's sitting at the table with precious few chips left, and I'm guessing she's going all-in with this.
So hold onto your hat. This is going to be a VERY interesting year.